|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Central Government - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 343 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2018 (11) TMI 535
Absolute Confiscation - penalty - smuggling - gold bangle/kara - Baggage Rules - case of applicant is that the gold bangle/kara was not purchased from Bangkok, this was in his use when he left from India - Held that:- The applicant has not produced any evidence to establish that he had taken the Kara along with him from India itself and he has not been able to give a convincing reason as to why he had got the gold kara coated with silver colour if he had worn it as a religious symbol in India itself - Moreover, a steel kara is commonly used as a religious symbol and a gold kara is not generally considered as a religious symbol by the Sikhs. The Commissioner (Appeals)’s order is erroneous to the extent the gold has been confiscated absolutely as Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is mandatory to give option to the owner of the ....... + More
- 2018 (11) TMI 534
Revision application - absolute confiscation of Foreign currency - the revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by allowing the redemption of the absolutely confiscated foreign currency which are prohibited goods. Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in his order that the foreign currencies in this case had been arranged by the respondent by selling his two properties in Delhi. But this fact alone cannot attenuate the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent by not only procuring the foreign currencies from illegal resources in brazen violation of FEMA and various other laws in force but also by attempting to export the foreign currencies to a foreign country in contravention of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1658
Redemption of confiscated goods - Gold - revision application is filed mainly on the grounds that the applicant had brought the gold for self use only from Dubai, gold was not concealed, it was declared at the red channel, his actions/omissions are not covered under Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the gold has been wrongly confiscated - Held that:- The applicant’s request for re-export of the confiscated gold is also not maintainable as this request was not placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as per order-in-appeal and even in the revision application no such claim has been made. The Government being the revisionary authority only, the scope of revision application has to be restricted to the correctness of the order in the light of factual and legal background of the case considered by the Commissio....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1655
Imposition of penalty - short landing of goods - Section 129DD(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- On examination of the preamble to the orders-in-original, it is noticed that the original advice to the applicant was that an appeal against these orders lies to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is outrightly wrong. But this error has not been corrected even subsequently by issuing proper corrigenda by the adjudicating authority by directing the applicant to file an appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata, in the light of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, instead of correcting the mistake, another error has been committed by issuing non-signed corrigenda by the Assistant Commissioner and by directing the applicant to file a revision application before the Governmen....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1651
Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Smuggling or not - Gold - case of applicant is that they had brought the gold for self-use only from Abu Dhabi without any concealment - Held that:- The applicant does not dispute the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order regarding confiscation of the gold which were brought by him illegally from Abu Dhabi in violation of Customs Act and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - As regards redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, the applicant has not advanced any convincing reason for reduction of fine and penalty and it is merely stated that redemption fine should not be more than the margin of profit. However, the Government does not agree with this contention as the redemption fine is in lieu of the value of confiscated goods which is vested with....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1650
Smuggling - trolley loaded with several baggages was diverted from the arrival area of the airport to the departure area of the airport - baggage rules - Jurisdiction - competency of Deputy Commissioner of Customs to file a revision application against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that:- A Review Order No. 121/2013, dated 18-12-2013 has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs directing and authorizing the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to file the present revision application and thus the applicant has properly filed the revision application before the Government. On merit, the respondent has pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all relevant facts and the order passed by him is as per law. Valuation of goods - Held that:- The respondent did not have any purchase invoices in respect of the imported go....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1649
Maintainability of revision application - Jurisdiction - respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the Government does not have jurisdiction in this matter as the gold articles worn by the respondent on her body cannot be considered as baggage - Re-export of confiscated goods - Gold - Section 80 of the Customs Act - Held that:- The respondent has misconstrued the scope of “baggage” as suitcase, bags or containers only in a narrow sense. Whereas the scope of baggage in the context of Chapter XI of the Customs Act, 1962, is much wider so as to cover all the goods carried by a person as a passenger irrespective of whether the goods are stuffed in a bag or in a body or worn on the body. If the goods worn on the body are kept outside the ambit of the term “baggage” as envisaged in Sections 77, 78 and 79 of Customs Act etc. as claimed ....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1648
Jurisdiction - Import of live cartridges and ammunition of different specifications - requirement of specific import license issued from DGFT - Baggage Rules - Held that:- The Government has examined the matter and it is observed at the outset that it is not in dispute that the ammunitions were imported by the applicant as cargo and the above referred Bill of Entry was filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 for clearance of the same. Thus, the goods were not imported as baggage. Whereas, as per first proviso to Section 129A read with Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962, a revision application can be filed before the Government against the order-in-appeal if it relates to the issue of baggage, drawback of duty and short landing of the goods. The dispute is regarding import of the ammunition as normal cargo. Therefore, the Governmen....... + More
- 2018 (3) TMI 1726
Imposition of penalty - active involvement in the case of smuggling - case of Revenue is that in spite of respondent’s active involvement in the case the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly exonerated him and as per Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to remand back the case to original authority - Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case back - Held that:- Applicant played an important role as a loader in connection with the wrong activities of Mr. Nagia and is liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act - Apparently all the facts have not been considered objectively by the Commissioner (Appeals). Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to remand the case back to original authority? - Held that:- The Government agrees with the applicant that C....... + More
- 2018 (3) TMI 1725
Re-export of confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty - smuggling - Gold Items - case of Revenue is that the gold items were brought in India in gross violation of the provisions of Customs Act and such re-export is not permissible under Section 80 of the Customs Act - Held that:- Under Section 80 re-export of the detained imported goods can be permitted only at the request of the passenger while he or she is returning from India to the foreign country and thereby it is explicit that returning of the PAX to the foreign country after a short visit to India as a tourist or otherwise is a crucial condition for re-export of such goods - But in the instant case, the respondent had gone to New York only for a short visit and there is no clue that he was either a U.S. citizen or working there on long term basis. On the contrar....... + More
- 2018 (3) TMI 1721
Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling or not? - Illegal import - gold, two cameras, electric bedsheets, mobile phone and LED T.V. - contravention of provision of the Customs Act - Held that:- Except the fact that the applicant had requested Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring some goods for him from abroad, there is no evidence to show that he had asked Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring the foreign goods by smuggling thereof. The applicant had not even paid any advance money also to Mr. Rajesh Kumar from which it is implied that he had intended to make payment only after goods were handed over to him. Hence, on the basis of the applicant’s mere request to Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring imported goods, it cannot be held that the applicant had violated any provision of Customs Act or abetted any such contravention. Government finds that applicant’s....... + More
- 2018 (2) TMI 1842
Duty Drawback - rejection for the reason that although the applicant exported their goods to M/s. DHL-FTZ, who are a consolidator in FTWZ, yet the export proceed was not received from M/s. DHL-FTZ - Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006 - Held that:- Actually the goods have been finally exported to M/s. Utexam Logistics Ltd., Ireland through M/s. DHL, a SEZ unit in India. The applicant itself has strongly asserted in the Revision Application that M/s. Utexam Logistics is the real buyer of the goods exported by the applicant and M/s. DHL is merely a conduit for M/s. Utexam Logistics. Considering this fact, the applicant’s claim for drawback in this case is not covered under C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 43/2007-Cus., dated 5-12-2007. The eligibility of drawback of duty against any export of goods by a DTA Unit to a SEZ unit is governed by Section 26(d)....... + More
- 2018 (2) TMI 1840
Duty Drawback - rejection on the ground since the goods had been put to use by the applicant, 98% drawback of duty of Customs is not admissible by virtue of Section 74(2) of the Act - Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- Testing of goods is considered as use of goods. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that testing of goods amounts to use of goods is not denied by the applicant also. But it is claimed that they had only inspected the goods and not tested. But no evidence has been provided to support their above claim. It does not sound otherwise also logical as the defects in the product like lanterns cannot be found out merely on physical verification and the functional defects can be actually found out on testing of the lantern. The applicant has also not produced any copy of correspondence with the Chinese sup....... + More
- 2018 (2) TMI 1839
Duty Drawback - Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - rejection on the ground that identity of the re-exported High Carbon Ferro Manganese Fines could not be established with the imported High Carbon Ferro Manganese Fines on the basis of documents submitted at the time of import and export - Held that:- While Government agrees with the applicant’s contentions that physical examination of the goods is not only the sole method for verification of identity of goods, each item must be identified by methods appropriate to the nature of goods and that the applicant has exported high carbon ferro manganese to the Korean company, no convincing evidence has been adduced by the applicant to establish that high carbon ferro manganese fines imported from South Africa only has been re-exported to the Korean company. The Government is convinced that id....... + More
- 2018 (1) TMI 1459
Re-export of confiscated gold on payment of reasonable redemption fine and penalty - no concealment of the goods in question - mere failure to declare the goods - The revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that he had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow re-export of the confiscated gold articles on payment of reasonable fine and penalty. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has completely ignored their above request and has instead allowed redemption of confiscated goods on payment of Customs duty, heavy redemption fine of ₹ 4,80,000/- and harsh fine of ₹ 2,50,000/-. Held that:- The Government finds that the gold articles namely one gold kara, one gold chain and one gold cut piece, total weighing 454 gms are apparently not of commercial quantity for a person earning such high salary. It has not been alleg....... + More
- 2018 (1) TMI 1458
Duty Drawback - classification of exported goods - women narrow fabric elastics - whether classified under Heading No. 5806 or otherwise? - Held that:- The revenue authorities have accepted that the product of the applicant is made by using these raw materials and with the technique of warp and weft. Considering all these facts, it is apparent that the woven fabric elastics exported by the applicant were narrow woven fabrics falling under S. No. 5806 01 and not under 5604 as held by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals - the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not offered any reason in their orders and have not discussed any detail on the basis of which the applicant's products can be classified under 5604. Considering the nature of the product, its size, its contents and its manufacturing techniques, ....... + More
- 2018 (1) TMI 1457
Duty Drawback - re-export of aircraft under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 - rejection of drawback on the ground that duty is not finally assessed and the matter is sub-judice - Held that:- The Dy. Commissioner has denied duty drawback to the applicant by citing a reason that duty has been paid in this case on provisional basis and Commissioner (Appeals) has given an additional reason that importability of the aircraft is yet to be settled. Both these reasons are manifestly unfounded and misplaced as the issue regarding levy of duty has already been finalized by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, and the applicant has not contested his order to the extent of recovery of Customs duty. Duty demanded from the applicant has already been paid. Further even if it is accepted that duty has been paid on provisional basis, it cannot be ignored....... + More
- 2018 (1) TMI 1455
Duty Drawback - supplementary claim - rejection on the ground of being time barred - Rule 15(1) & (2) of Drawback Rules, 1995 - Held that:- Supplementary claim is governed by the provisions of Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules as per which where the exporter finds that the amount of drawback paid to him is lesser than what he is entitled to, he may prefer a supplementary claim within a period of three months. As per Rule 15(i)(ii) of Rules, the three months period is counted from the date of payment/settlement of the original drawback claim by the proper officer. However, the time period of three months can be extended by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs for a further period of nine months on being satisfied that the exporter was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his supplementary claim within the aforesaid period of three....... + More
- 2018 (1) TMI 1452
Re-export of confiscated Jewellery - no such request for re-export of the confiscated gold was made before Commissioner (Appeals) by the applicant - Held that:- It is noticed from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that no such request for re-export of the confiscated gold was made before him by the applicant. The applicant has also not provided any evidence to show that she had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow her to re-export the confiscated gold. Therefore, no defect can be attributed to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this account and the Government being only a revisionary authority in this case and not an appellate authority, it does not consider it proper at this juncture to entertain an additional prayer of the applicant which was never raised before Commissioner (Appeals). Reduction of redemption fine and....... + More
- 2018 (1) TMI 1451
Erroneous paid Duty Drawback - applicant took nine months to reply to the deficiency memo issued by the department when it was mandatory to reply within 30 days of the issuance of deficiency memo under the said Rules, 1995 - Held that:- Rule 5(4)(a) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 stipulates that any claim which is incomplete in any material particular or is found without the documents specified in sub-rule (2) shall not be accepted for the purpose of Section 75A and such claim shall be returned to the claimant with the deficiency memo in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs within fifteen days of submission and shall be deemed not to have been filed - But in the instant case, the applicant’s drawback claim was never returned in accordance with the above stated rule and instead it ....... + More
........
|
